Since I'm not a religious person anymore, this is not a thread advocating clergy people. But simply a comparison between most clergy and JW elders. Usually JWs have made it a positive that elders are not like clergy. However, in their authoritarianism, it seems they are. But in the following ways they're not and it's a negative comparison for the elders.
The pivotal difference is being paid clergy and unpaid elders.
It progresses to a difference between professionals and volunteers.
A definition of professional that applies to this discussion is: engaged in for pay, not an amateur. Secondary to this is an occupation usually requiring advanced study and specialized training. (The JWs would say the two-week elder course would be advanced study. You be the judge of that.)
Two ways of saying paid clergy or clergy who have the expenses met so they can devote their time to their profession. Same as doctors, lawyers, or any other profession: they are compensated so they can spend their time to do their jobs.
Volunteers, however, and for this discussion I mean elders of Jehovahs Witnesses, do not have their expenses cared for nor anything else. So, realistically how much of their time can be used for further education, counseling, and caring for people, which is their job or profession?
A volunteer must hustle to meet all the needs of his own personal life and family. As everyone who does this knows, it pretty much takes all your high-energy time. What's left over is usually for relaxation.
But not with elders, who need to work full-time usually, spend time with their families, try to do the reading for the WT dictates, etc., etc. No wonder they botch stuff up and seem usually unavailable.
On the other hand, a professional, paid clergyman or priest, one would suppose, has received much training in many fields and has the time available to do his job without having to hustle to work at a full time job to support himself. At the very least, they're required to have a college education and a degree in divinity, right?
One elder I knew made the statement that they are not drug and alcohol counselors. This was an understatement. They don't have qualifications to be counselors of any kind. The basis for their claim is, of course, the Bible. They assert that by knowing that, it qualifies them to assume the position of clergy. But the actual experience is that it does not. And by JR Brown's infamous statement of their being untrained volunteers, there is further evidence of my point.
If you had a raging fire, would you prefer a professionally trained and full-time firefighter, or an unpaid volunteer? If you had a child molestation, would the government send in an untrained, unpaid volunteer or a paid professional? If you have need of a psychologist, do you want a slightly trained volunteer or a paid professional? And so on.
The Bible's law of two witnesses has been shown up to be woefully inadequate for the child-molestation issues. Because that law was written long before modern techniques of crime solving. The same as the laws on blood. It's the same as the Bibles criteria for elders, Its outdated and plainly doesnt work.
Soooo, what do you think? I'll be at work all day and unable to check this thread, but will return later. Enjoy your day!
Pat
Edited by - Patio34 on 11 September 2002 9:52:42